Riley v. California
Angela jackson
Ap government
9 September 2014 Riley v. California
In the case of Riley v California the defendant and petitioner David Leon Riley was arrested August 22, 2009, after a traffic stop which resulted in the finding of loaded guns in car. The officer stopped riley searched him and took hold of his phone and then searched through messages, contacts, and photos. The officer charged Riley with an unrelated shooting that had taken place before his arrest based on the data stored in Riley's phone. The data found in Riley phone were images of gang’s signs and believed to be in a part of a gang. Riley went to try to suppress all evidence the officer had got from searching his phone on the grounds that the search had violated his fourth amendment rights. However the trial court denied his argument and stated the incident was legitimate to arrest, Riley was convicted.
In the case Riley v California the court made the decision that the police must have a warrant in order to search cell phones, even in a case of arrest. If any data that is not in the warrant is obtained an officer must get rid of it. To obtain a warrant there must need to be an emergency or demanding circumstance. The court emphasized that the fact that cellphones now allows an individual to carry so much information in their hands does not makes it less valuable and still needs protection. This decision is now added to the fourth amendment and covers cellphone rights.
In the case of Riley v California 9-0 judges voted for the decision in which police must get a warrant in order to search a phone. The opinion of the court was delivered by chief justice john Roberts in which he concluded a warrant is needed to search phone. However Judge Samuel Alito wrote an opinion concurring in which he showed doubts that the warrantless search after arrest sole expectation is for protecting officer’s safety and preserving evidence. Alito still however
Ap government
9 September 2014 Riley v. California
In the case of Riley v California the defendant and petitioner David Leon Riley was arrested August 22, 2009, after a traffic stop which resulted in the finding of loaded guns in car. The officer stopped riley searched him and took hold of his phone and then searched through messages, contacts, and photos. The officer charged Riley with an unrelated shooting that had taken place before his arrest based on the data stored in Riley's phone. The data found in Riley phone were images of gang’s signs and believed to be in a part of a gang. Riley went to try to suppress all evidence the officer had got from searching his phone on the grounds that the search had violated his fourth amendment rights. However the trial court denied his argument and stated the incident was legitimate to arrest, Riley was convicted.
In the case Riley v California the court made the decision that the police must have a warrant in order to search cell phones, even in a case of arrest. If any data that is not in the warrant is obtained an officer must get rid of it. To obtain a warrant there must need to be an emergency or demanding circumstance. The court emphasized that the fact that cellphones now allows an individual to carry so much information in their hands does not makes it less valuable and still needs protection. This decision is now added to the fourth amendment and covers cellphone rights.
In the case of Riley v California 9-0 judges voted for the decision in which police must get a warrant in order to search a phone. The opinion of the court was delivered by chief justice john Roberts in which he concluded a warrant is needed to search phone. However Judge Samuel Alito wrote an opinion concurring in which he showed doubts that the warrantless search after arrest sole expectation is for protecting officer’s safety and preserving evidence. Alito still however